1978 PLC 181 (PLP)

Abdus Samad for Respondent Dates of hearing t 3rd August 1977 This case was remanded by the High Court for disposal of the case on consideration of the evidence of three witnesses.

2. The appellant was in the permanent employment of the respondent. According to the allegation made by him he worked up to 28th July 1975 and when on 29th July, 1975 he went to the mills, he was stopped at the gate and wax not permitted to enter by the Management. After the service of grievance notice, he approached the Labour Court. The application was opposed and it was pleaded that the appellant himself remained absent and it was untrue that he was stopped at the gate. It was also pleaded that an ex parte inquiry was held as the appellant did not care to attend the inquiry. He was found guilty and distressed from service.

3. Evidence was tendered by both the parties. On the assessment of the evidence the Labour Court dismissed the application filed by the appellant. An appeal was filed against that order. I allowed the appeal and Vet aside the order passed by the Labour Court with the direction for re‑instatement with full back benefits.

4. Aggrieved by my order, a writ petition was filed in the High Court. A few pleas were taken. One of the pleas, which found favour with their Lordships was that the evidence of S. Zaheer Ashraf, Mansoor Ahmed and Sarwar Khan Chowkidar, who were examined by the respondent is the Labour Court, was not considered by me and, therefore, the interference was called for. Consequently, my order was set aside and the case was remanded for reconsideration of the evidence and passing such order as may be deemed proper after taking into consideration the evidence of the aforesaid persons.

5. On remand I issued notice to the parties. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and it has been conceded before me by the learned counsel for the parties that the only point, which requires consideration is as to whether the appellant was stopped at the gate on 29th July 1975 or be himself remained absent.

6. I have already dealt with the evidence tendered on behalf of the appellant in my previous order and enumerated the circumstances for believing his evidence. I see no reason to change my view with regard to that evidence. So far as the evidence of the three witnesses, examined by the respondent, is concerned. it may be pointed out that at the outset of the arguments the learned counsel for the respondent conceded that the evidence of Zahir Ashraf was acct relevant for the purpose of the point under con sideration as be was not a witness of the incident which was said to have occurred, as pleaded by the appear of and he had no personal knowledge about the entire affair. Thus there remains the evidence of Mansoor Ahmed and Sarwar Khan, Chowkidar Mansoor Ahmed refuted the allegation that the appellant was stopped at the gate. It is noteworthy that be was never examined in the domestic inquiry, although, according to the allegation made by the appellant, he was the person at whose instance he was stopped at the gate by the Chowkidar. He is an interested witness and I am not inclined to accept his evidence in view of the circumstances, which had been fully dealt with by me in tray previous order. So far Sarwar Khan is concern ed, he stated that he was Chowkidar in the day time when the appellant used to attend his duty till the time be absented himself. In his he stands A falsified by Zaheer Ashraf who stated that there were two shifts in the factory and each shift changed c a cry week on Monday. He further stated that Abdul Rehman used to be on duty at day time. Thus Sarwar who claimed to be performing of duty during day time stands belied by the evidence of Zahir Ashraf It may also be noted that not only he is in employment of the Management but his father is also in the employment of the respondent. Additionally, he stated in the cross, examination that he did not depose against Mohammed Din (appellant) previously. This clearly indicates that be was Lot examined in the domestic enquiry. So the statement made by the Inquiry Officer in the inquiry report that Sarwar Khan was examined is also false.

7. In result I have no hesitation in coming to me conclusion that the appellant was victimized and the termination of the service was illegal and cannot be supported. I, therefore, maintain my previous order. Appeal allowed.